Cola I know I am not staff on SOI. I know I do not play SOI currently and have not for over a year. I am however lucky enough to have over 10 years of staffing experience! And so I thought I might chime in here regarding your concerns about why an RPI staff member would nogain a player without their knowledge?

1) By not informing a player of why the nogain was applied the staff do not confirm whether their course of action is an effective means of grinding.

2) Because the staff have not confirmed that a players actions are an effective means of grinding they have only their results to inform them.

3) With the results being skewed due to the nogain the player will (hopefully) presume that their powergaming actions are not effective and not continue them.

This is considered standard policy on some RPIs and there is clearly a logic to it. Once you confirm a method of play can lead to quick gains it either leads to that player trying to sneak in ways to do it or the staff having to change code to try and compensate for the grinding approach that is being used.

Many players these days -know- how to raise skills and how to effectively grind up. If what they are doing is not working they can assume they are bugged, or they can eventually realize they are set no-gain and get royally pissed off.

This is a wonderful way to alienate a player and have them leave the game for good. If you simply speak to them and warn them you are far less likely to alienate the player, instead they will strive to do better.

For example, your kid is stealing cookies from the cookie jar and instead of speaking to them and punishing them, you lace the cookies with laxatives so every time your kid eats cookies he has a bad time in the bathroom. Do you think this is a good idea? Do you think he will ever learn or even associate the punishment with what hes doing wrong?

Well, that's why most often we warn folks, and over the lifetime of SOI have only used nogain without warning in very specific circumstances, about 3 times in total since 2013, and never for longer than 3RL days. I believe once was someone who was running through the orc warrens spamming palm on random things he found, was warned, and kept doing it. So we just set them nogain, and they got the hint.

Looking back over the last 3 months, we've actually punished only one player. And they were informed of the punishment, reasoning for it, etc. Compare that to the number of warnings and gentle reminders that we /have/ indeed used, I think the issue is really moot.

Staff don't take delight in punishing players. It's a pain in our ass. We don't want to secretly monitor all player activity. We don't care, unless someone is clearly abusing a bug. To those who think they've been no-gained or secretly punished, I'm sorry that you think we honestly care that much about your twinkery, or that we watch you personally at all hours of the day. We don't, you're not that special, and we have better things to occupy our time with.

Because beyond those three things, I couldn't think of something absolutely so agregious that I instantly thought, "TWINK!" I mean heck, I don't think I've punished folks for those things. We're stunningly leniant. It's about "well shit I really can't think of a big long list of things players do that piss me off."

If we don't like something you do, we'll more than likely warn you the first time.

Honestly, Cola, where are you seeing this abuse and favoratism? Are we banning folks left and right? Taking donations for personal use? Abusing players verbally? Giving boosts to our favorite special snowflakes secretly? Refusing to apologize for mistakes made?

You yourself should be able to speak to the willingness of staff to support even 0rpp players in their rp. You wished to try and manipulate an NPC through an animation to get something that was completely out of the ordinary, and you got staff time and attention and were able to do it! Does that make you one of our supposed special butterflies? Are you now "in" with us, able to get phat boosts and custom equipment when coming IG? No. We really make an effort to be fair, leniant, and relatively permissive in allowing things people ask for. We make an effort not to be manipulative jerks who make player's experiences suck.

Icarus wrote:
Honestly, Cola, where are you seeing this abuse and favoratism? Are we banning folks left and right? Taking donations for personal use? Abusing players verbally? Giving boosts to our favorite special snowflakes secretly? Refusing to apologize for mistakes made?

A short while back a very well-placed PC basically murdered a newbie in the Utterby tavern for what appeared to be OOC reasons. Instead of letting that well-placed PC face the consequences, staff tried to resurrect the newbie-- without the player's permission. When that didn't work (the newbie immediately retired her character) staff carted her character off-stage to Laketown; all apparently to protect that "well-placed" character from the repercussions of his IC actions. (Which-- in my humble opinion would have made a pretty cool addition to the story.) I see that as pretty blatant abuse and "favoratism" [sic].

That being said, the prime example you give of punishing someone for "twinking" without their knowledge (the orc palming everything in sight) I feel to be inappropriate. I follow the careers of a few magicians (Penn & Teller, the Amazing Randi) because I'm interested in their dedication to exposing frauds and charlatans. I've read that "palming" (holding something in the folds of one's palm, allowing the fingers to appear free) takes practice and dedication. One author wrote that he typed the manuscript for his book while palming a half-dollar coin.

In my opinion, a good definition of "twinking" would involve doing something for the sake of exploiting code that one would never do if one were trying to realistically play a character. That being said: what that orc was doing was exactly what someone in real-life would be doing if their goal was to become better at palming: constantly practicing the skill while going about with everyday life.

If we can come to such differing conclusions about your most blatant example of "twinking," might it be possible that some detailed, public, written guidelines are in order?

I believe our definitions of short while ago are rather different, as you have for some reason gotten your panties in a bunch over something that occurred over seven months ago? During a period when I wasn't actively participating in the game?

Respectfully, are there many administrators out there that would pander to this sort of a discussion? That wouldn't lock this thread, and likely ban you for accusing staff of delighting in torturing newbies? I mean really. I /honestly/ think that the fact that we are having this discussion is evidence that staff aren't what you seem to believe they are.

And if you really do believe that staff are this all consuming evil, then I encourage you to follow Nim's advice to shadowboard Mike.

On being a "twink" code-abuse, and the Role-play intensive (RPI) environment.

Shadows of Isildur (SoI) being an RPI game, we expect all players to be "in-character" whenever they are logged into the game. We have a few options for Out-of-Character (OOC) activities available that should be used sparingly. ("OOC" for an ooc comment or question, or a "pmote" that can indicate your character's temporary unavailability for play). That being said, we at SoI expect you to keep your play "in-character" (IC) as much as possible, and to log out when unable to do so.

It can be tempting to "power-up" your character while neglecting the RPI aspect of our game. For example, setting up triggers so your character performs automated action that increase their skills while you as a person go off to do other tasks. This is inappropriate behavior in our game. Triggers are fine if you are paying close attention to your MUD client and take full responsibility for their failure to do what is expected when situations change. But having your character mutely drone on with some task while another player's character is attempting to interact with your is rude, selfish, and against our rules. Please don't do it.

It would be impossible for us to give an example of every impolite, selfish act a player can perform while playing SoI, and it's kind of a downer. So instead, we want to provide some guidelines for good play, as well as good staff behavior.

1. Keep "in-character." Think about what your character would do if the situation were real, and not just a computer simulation. Would a real craftsperson churn out piles of junk they had no hope of selling? It is reasonable to say "no" even though it might be in your best interest as a participant in our imperfect computer simulation to do so. Please don't create objects that have little or no chance of being useful to anyone, even if they serve well to help you increase your skills. On the other hand, did we as children write our alphabet repetitively in an effort to gain literacy? Indeed we did. So always keep realism in mind.

If a staff person interrupts your RP to ask what exactly you are doing, please be ready to defend your RP as realistic (staff are obliged to ask what your motivations/justifications are before imposing any warnings or punishments upon you). Staff cannot be expert on all aspects of all professions and player motivations. So be ready to explain why you are doing something (feel free to reference documentation on your chosen skill or field if you wish). But if you are directing your character to do something just for the sake coded skill increases, please stop. The goal of our game is group story-telling through human interaction, and this kind of "power gaming" distracts from that goal. How do real pick-pockets develop their skills? Not by fumbling around with random people on the street until they master it, but by getting lessons and long hours of practice on willing subjects. Not only is that more realistic, but finding and dealing with your 'partner in crime' is also more to the goals of our game: role-play, character interaction, and story-telling. "Spamming" steal repeatedly from a willing (PC) partner isn't abuse, as long as you have set up a realistic context for that behavior. The code is already set up to limit how much of any skill you can gain in a limited time. Just keep your play realistic and everything will be fine.

In the area of increasing combat skills, some particular guidelines have been adopted that we wish you would follow. We sometimes forget that our characters feel pain that we the player behind them do not experience. The code doesn't represent that pain adequately in most cases. During spars, please immediately request to stop the spar once your character is down to four stars of health. This is an arbitrary yet necessary guideline. It isn't realistic to practice spar by beating your opponent into a bloody pulp within inches of their life.

Injuries in SoI heal much faster than in real-life. This presents some RP issues. Please note your health in injuries and make some effort to play your character realistically in light of them. Don't set your character to "run" when one or both legs are injured. We understand that combat in an RPI/permadeath game can be stressful, and some leeway on realistic RP is in order: especially on the "losing" side. (Ignoring obvious injuries in order to hunt down and finish-off a fleeing opponent might not get the same tolerance.) That being said, try your best to play realistically within your injuries, and if staff notice this effort, they will make note of it.

How you portray your character when going though the healing process is also subjective. The code typically will heal a character unrealistically fast. You might assume the humans of middle earth to be of hardier stock than people today, and heal up faster. You might wish to spend some time portraying a slowly healing character, even if the code is indicating your are in excellent health. We leave that more or less up to you.

If you choose to pursue healing skills in SoI, please oblige yourselves to RP extensively. We recognize the emotes provided by healing code to be inadequate. Entertain us with your sloppiness, your precision, your indifference, or your dedication, your reliance on ritual and gestures, or your faith in "modern" medicine. But please take the role seriously, and dedicate yourself to creating emotes around the healing code that bring your style to life.

There can be times when especially a new player will want to 'try out' code in different circumstances and situations for OOC reasons: you just want to learn how it works. We understand this. As long as your efforts are sincere it isn't an issue.

There are a number of commands that have nothing directly to do with improving your character's coded strengths. Commands like "skills" "crafts" "score" "health" "group" "inventory" and many others. Feel free to use them as much as you wish. We all recognize it is fun to see that your character jumped a level or discovered a new craft, and one way to do that is through the appropriate command.

After reading all this, you may have come to the conclusion that SoI is not so welcoming to the "lone-wolf" character that is more interested in interacting with the code than with other players. That may be partially true. Role-play is about performing: if not for other PCs obviously in the room, at least for the possible hidden character, or the unseen staff member. But please, always keep in mind your obligation to play a role in our game, even if at that moment there is no obvious audience for that role. Being alone in a game room is not an excuse to drop your character's persona and focus instead on the code and 'powering-up' your character. That being said, you are not obliged to create elaborate emotes for an audience that may or may not exist. Just do not fall out of your character's role entirely.

Minor suggestion if the above is adopted in any way shape or form. There is no need to specify rude, selfish, or other terms in the guidelines of a policy.

You describe an action or situation which violates policy. You state that it is a violation of policy. You don't need to elaborate further than that and doing so is likely to lead to a player going. I broke policy but I'm not selfish or rude! No benefit to the extra descriptive words.

Oi vei, Cola. There comes a point where you dislike the game/its Administrators so much that you vote with your feet and go find another game.

This wall-of-text business about injustice and etc.? Find somewhere else to play. I'm always in favor of Admins making guidelines/being transparent, but if they don't want to do it themselves, you're just wasting your and their time.

Jeshin wrote:Minor suggestion if the above is adopted in any way shape or form. There is no need to specify rude, selfish, or other terms in the guidelines of a policy.

You describe an action or situation which violates policy. You state that it is a violation of policy. You don't need to elaborate further than that and doing so is likely to lead to a player going. I broke policy but I'm not selfish or rude! No benefit to the extra descriptive words.

I don't agree. If you have a policy, it behooves you to explain why it's there. Think of the other players as partners who deserve explanations.

tehkory wrote:Oi vei, Cola. There comes a point where you dislike the game/its Administrators so much that you vote with your feet and go find another game.

This wall-of-text business about injustice and etc.? Find somewhere else to play. I'm always in favor of Admins making guidelines/being transparent, but if they don't want to do it themselves, you're just wasting your and their time.

That would depend on whether one sees themselves as a customer of a service who has no more say than to either "take it or leave it," or a partner in a process who deserves their say in how it functions. I see myself as a partner here at SoI. Apparently you see yourself as a customer.

I think Cola has a point that transparency benefits both the players and the staff. However, I believe transparency is most important in regards to rewards/roles/rpps rather then punishments.

In regards to punishments, I think so long as the staff is giving warnings/notifying the players once that what they are doing is frowned upon, that is fair. Do it second time after you know you shouldn't be and you don't deserve a notification that you have been flagged negatively.

It is as much the players' role to police themselves as it is the staff's. It really just comes down not to doing idiotic things, like spamming commands for skill raises or abusing the code. Common sense is the key factor here. If in doubt, take the safe way out.

With that said, we all do stupid stuff sometimes. I know I have. Even so, a three day no-gain flag is fairly small in the greater scheme of things.

Last edited by MrT2G on Mon Jun 08, 2015 5:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Last post I'll make since I don't play and I don't want to pretend even for a second to speak for the staff.

Any policy that is listed is presumed to be for the health and maintenance of the game. You can justify it without descriptors which are designed to shame or invoke a feeling of guilt in the player(s) who may be violating policy. The last thing you want is to inject emotion into a policy situation. It's a rule. It has a punishment. That's it. You don't want people getting all emotional about it.

Example: Having your character mutely drone on with some task while another player's character is attempting to interact with you is rude, selfish, and against our rules. Please don't do it.

Edited: If you fail to respond to characters or staff while performing an automated task that is a violation of policy regarding botting. We are an RPI game and interaction is a fundamental part of that experience. Please ensure that you are paying attention to the monitor while playing and respond to both characters and staff as the situation warrants, even if your response is to emote that you are ignoring the character. You must always respond to staff inquires.

Jeshin wrote:Last post I'll make since I don't play and I don't want to pretend even for a second to speak for the staff.

Any policy that is listed is presumed to be for the health and maintenance of the game. You can justify it without descriptors which are designed to shame or invoke a feeling of guilt in the player(s) who may be violating policy. The last thing you want is to inject emotion into a policy situation. It's a rule. It has a punishment. That's it. You don't want people getting all emotional about it.

Example: Having your character mutely drone on with some task while another player's character is attempting to interact with you is rude, selfish, and against our rules. Please don't do it.

Edited: If you fail to respond to characters or staff while performing an automated task that is a violation of policy regarding botting. We are an RPI game and interaction is a fundamental part of that experience. Please ensure that you are paying attention to the monitor while playing and respond to both characters and staff as the situation warrants, even if your response is to emote that you are ignoring the character. You must always respond to staff inquires.

I get where you are coming from, really. But I think (and the Guide who posted just above you apparently agrees) that it isn't a bad thing to call out rudeness when it occurs, maybe more so in a general posting or announcement that isn't directed at a single individual, and thus likely to cause offense. My objective was (and is) to remind the reader that SoI is a cooperative enterprise between real people, not primarily an endeavor between an individual and a computer code. We cannot be rude to computers, we can be rude to real people, and I wished to emphasize that aspect of the game.

tehkory wrote:Oi vei, Cola. There comes a point where you dislike the game/its Administrators so much that you vote with your feet and go find another game.

This wall-of-text business about injustice and etc.? Find somewhere else to play. I'm always in favor of Admins making guidelines/being transparent, but if they don't want to do it themselves, you're just wasting your and their time.

That would depend on whether one sees themselves as a customer of a service who has no more say than to either "take it or leave it," or a partner in a process who deserves their say in how it functions. I see myself as a partner here at SoI. Apparently you see yourself as a customer.

Nah. That's a strawman argument, and not a terribly good one. See, partners can't force each other to do what they want. I'm happy to see myself as a partner. I just don't think I can force my ways on others, and at the end of the day, when Staff aren't taking your bait, you can either take it, or leave it. That's whether you're a partner, a customer, or the one 'selling' your services in the first place.

Nobody's forced to stay where they are, and you're not convincing anyone so far. And in the end, as a 'partner' or a 'customer,' you're not thus far making much of an effort to offer anything in either changing policy or continued enforcement of policy.

In short, you're beating your head against a wall, unsuccessfully. Maybe it's time to let it go and move on.

ETA:

I think Cola has a point that transparency benefits both the players and the staff. However, I believe transparency is most important in regards to rewards/roles/rpps rather then punishments.

I'm all for transparency. Hell, I think Individuals should be posted on a Wall of Shame repeatedly to get ahead of this so we don't have 'wahh wahhs' posted months later. Transparency with punishment is great. But...either Staff will do it, or they won't. Once you've made your argument, let them be.

tehkory wrote:
Nah. That's a strawman argument, and not a terribly good one.

Apparently you don't understand what a "strawman" argument is.

tehkory wrote:See, partners can't force each other to do what they want.

Now that is an example of a strawman argument. I never contended I could force other partners to do what I want. I contended that as a partner I have a say: a right to speak my piece about an issue. To twist that into "forcing others" is the beginning of a strawman argument: twisting or recreating someone's words to say something they neither said nor intended to say, and then arguing against that false contention instead of what the person actually said, which you went on to do.

Possibly you see my arguments as so compelling as they are essentially undeniable, and thus any reasonable person would be compelled to act on them. That however, is technically not "forcing" someone, but convincing someone to agree with one's point of view of their own free will, which is the ultimate goal of a discussion like this.

Last edited by Cola on Mon Jun 08, 2015 7:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

tehkory wrote:
Nah. That's a strawman argument, and not a terribly good one.

Apparently you don't understand what a "strawman" argument is.

tehkory wrote:See, partners can't force each other to do what they want.

Now that is an example of a strawman argument. I never contended I could force other partners to do what I want. I contended that as a partner I have a say: a right to speak my piece about an issue. To twist that into "forcing others" is the beginning of a strawman argument: twisting or recreating someone's words to say something they neither said nor intended to say, and then arguing against that false contention instead of what the person actually said, which you went on to do.

A strawman would be where you say 'so-and-so clearly means X,' when they never said anything of the sort. For example, I don't view myself as a customer. And I've never said you intended to force anyone to do anything, simply that you can't...and once it's become clear they don't intend to, you stop posting, and move on. You're not able to do anything else. You've said your piece, and NOW it's time to move on.

tehkory wrote:
A strawman would be where you say 'so-and-so clearly means X,' when they never said anything of the sort. For example, I don't view myself as a customer. And I've never said you intended to force anyone to do anything, simply that you can't...and once it's become clear they don't intend to, you stop posting, and move on. You're not able to do anything else. You've said your piece, and NOW it's time to move on.

And as an example of doing as I say:
*exits thread*

Sorry no.

In no way did I make a strawman argument. It isn't possible if the potential "strawman" to be subsequently attacked is the last sentence in a statement. No attack on the "strawman": no strawman argument. If I had gone on to contend "because you see yourself as a customer, it must be true that X,Y and/or Z." That second part is necessary to create a strawman argument.

What you might have wanted to contend is that I made a false contention. I did not. I included the word "apparently" as in "it appears to me that..." again, that is not a strawman argument, nor a false contention, as it is a reflection of my views, of which I am the final arbitrator.

A slight derail, but certain person keeps using this as an argument of theirs, in my opinion unfairly. My post has nothing to do with the rules, policies or twinkery.

As the person who did a good portion of the "tweaking armor classes", I do apologize in case someone feels my time spent as a coder is misplaced. It should be however noted that I am just that - a coder and a builder. I do not participate in any of the administrative tasks, such as writing up rules. Been there, done that, unfortunately didn't get the T-shirt, not again. Similarly, two other staff memeber who participated on this were builders at the time, not roleplay administrators.

As for why we would ever consider armor and weapon rehaul over other work, players have made it very clear that that is what they desire of us, as evidenced here and here and here and here and here aaaand here.

Cola, while I do appreciate feedback and constructive criticism, I do not appreciate being criticized for doing volunteer work for this community especially when members of that community have asked for the work to be done. Please, stop it, or consider wording your criticism more carefully if it wasn't meant the way I am reading it.

I don't always test my code.
But when I do I do it on the player port.

Ceredir wrote:
Cola, while I do appreciate feedback and constructive criticism, I do not appreciate being criticized for doing volunteer work for this community especially when members of that community have asked for the work to be done. Please, stop it, or consider wording your criticism more carefully if it wasn't meant the way I am reading it.

You shouldn't feel criticized. I'm not criticizing you at all, because <i>you</i> didn't make a promise on April 23 to get something important accomplished within a week and invite harassment if you didn't fulfill that promise.

Now it's me that is feeling unfairly criticized. Icarus makes a promise, asks to be 'harassed' if he doesn't follow through. Then he doesn't follow through and (surprise, surprise) he gets harassed. Then he claims there's no need to follow through: "where's the blatant staff favoritism?" He asks. And (surprise, surprise) he get an example of blatant staff favoritism.

That wall of text looked suspiciously like a quoted help file from somewhere and if you actually bothered to read it, I can find no fault with any of the guidelines outlined therein.

I find that Icarus, among others seem to be using a very condescending tone in disparaging or insulting Cola rather than addressing the points being raised.

As far as 'voting with your feet', the term is an oxymoron.
Voting implies having your voice be heard.
Yet the phrase is really suggesting that someone shut-up and go away.
Not the best customer service policy.

If, as a company, you are unwilling to hear the complaints and criticism of your userbase...
...perhaps, as humans, you aren't mature enough to be running a company.
Censoring people, or attempting to do so, won't change that.